Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 22nd October 2026 (Reserved on 7th October 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Satish Sangar (aged ~54, Service employee, residing Thane) vs. Respondent No.1 – The Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport (TMT); Respondent No.2 – Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC); Respondent No.3 – Director of Insurance, Government of Maharashtra.
  • Nature of Proceeding: First Appeal No.39 of 2008 under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Thane, challenging the Tribunal’s award dated 8 December 2006 which dismissed the claim petition.
  • Background: On 4 August 1998, Sangar boarded a TMT bus at Gokul Nagar Bus Stand after work at Thane Janata Sahakari Bank. The bus was crowded; he stood on the footboard. The TMT driver started the bus, overtook a stationary MSRTC bus, and the TMT bus grazed the MSRTC bus, causing Sangar to be thrown from the footboard.
  • Injuries: Treated at Civil Hospital Thane and Arogya Hospital; admitted for 12 days. Injuries included a steel plate in the right wrist joint and a plaster on the left wrist. Dr. Sandeep Kelshikar issued a disability certificate dated 28 January 2006 certifying 30% disability.
  • Claim: Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sangar claimed Rs.1,25,000 in compensation against TMT, MSRTC and the Director of Insurance. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding Sangar solely negligent.
  • Evidence: Sangar’s own testimony, witness Vivek Trambak Shelke (employer), and Dr. Kelshikar. TMT examined Traffic Controller Yelkantha Patil; MSRTC examined Traffic Inspector Ales Salu Nigrel. Neither respondent filed a written statement, but the Tribunal allowed their witnesses.
  • Key Findings of the Tribunal: No registration number of the buses proved; both witnesses testified that no bus with number 6616 (as per police statement) existed. Tribunal concluded neither bus was involved, blamed Sangar for standing on footboard, and held him 100% negligent.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court examined the police statement (Exhibit‑55) showing the TMT bus overtook the stationary MSRTC bus. While the police statement did not expressly allege driver negligence, the Court inferred negligence from circumstances and oral evidence. It upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the MSRTC driver was not negligent (bus stationary). It disagreed with the Tribunal’s exclusive attribution of fault to the claimant and apportioned negligence 75% to the TMT driver and 25% to the claimant.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corp.; Kalim Khan v. Fimidabee; Vanita v. Shriram Insurance; Mohammed Aynuddin Alias Miyam; Sithara N.S. v. Sai Ram General Insurance. The Court distinguished these cases on facts, especially regarding vehicle identification and the standard of proof.
  • Disability Assessment: Dr. Kelshikar’s certificate (30% disability) was based on examination on 20 January 2006, eight years after the accident. Injuries listed: compound comminuted fracture of right humerus, Colles fracture of left radius, and a plate.
  • Compensation Calculation:
  • Loss of income: Rs.10,723 per month × 3 months = Rs.32,169 (though the Court noted insufficient evidence to award loss‑of‑income compensation, it still quantified for apportionment).
  • Future medical expenses: Rs.15,000
  • Medical bills: Rs.16,716
  • Arogya Hospital bills: Rs.16,480
  • Pain and suffering: Rs.50,000
  • Attendance charges: Rs.10,000
  • Loss of comfort and amenities: Rs.50,000
  • Conveyance charges: Rs.10,000
  • Special diet: Rs.10,000
  • Total Enhanced Amount: Rs.2,10,365 (no amount received earlier).
  • Liability: Respondent No.1 (TMT) and Respondent No.3 (Director of Insurance) are jointly and severally liable for the total compensation. The apportionment of negligence affects only loss‑of‑income calculation, not other expense items.

Final Outcome

  • The Appeal is allowed.
  • TMT and the Director of Insurance are directed to pay Rs.2,10,365 jointly and severally to Satish Sangar within 12 weeks, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition until realization.
  • Court fee to be paid before the Tribunal.
  • All pending applications are disposed of.

Topics: Compensation, Motor Accident Liability, Judicial Appeal